The Last Homely House
Middle-Earth => Archives of Minas Tirith => Topic started by: MR. Lurtzy on February 06, 2010, 03:47:50 AM
-
Played a game a few hours ago (IRL :o), and on the third site, my opponent played Whisper in the Dark. I told him it was not legal to play, ever. He disagreed. I have seen many different takes on this ruling, so I'm not completely sure. Opinions?
-
if a card directly contradicts the rules of the game, the card wins.
so yes
-
I fail to see how this card is problematic, unless I am missing some rule that followers cannot bear anything.
-
yeah, that is a rule
followers can't bear other cards, including possessions and conditions.
-
If my recollection serves me right, Decipher said on their forums that LotR doesn't have golden rules, so I think the best we can do is come up with a model ourselves. O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! and Whisper in the Dark have been problematic personally. With the former, I think we'd normally handle things so that OE!G! works but Hobbit Stealth doesn't, but here the rule still takes precedence. With the latter, I think that calls into question what exactly counts as a contradiction. IMO a direct contradiction would be "Followers can bear cards." and not "Bearer must be a follower."
But... in an actual game, IMO Decipher intended for WitD to be played on a follower without any kind of support, so I wouldn't take issue with this.
-
Generally, the later rule takes precedence over the earlier rule, which is why I've heard that O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! doesn't work (the rule against canceling the Ring-bearer's skirmish postdates OEG). Also, the specific rule takes precedence over the general rule (which is an argument for making OEG work).
Thus cards can override the rules if they have an action that would be invalid otherwise. For example, Sent Back lets you play a unique companion when there's a copy of him in your dead pile, in direct contradiction to the rule that says you can't. For that matter, even cards like Gollum, PD override the rules inasmuch as its text is apparently active when it's in your discard pile and not in play.
The only clear exception I've heard to the principle that cards override the rules is OEG (presumably because the new rule came after OEG). Some might argue that another exception is playing events out of phase with Pass of Caradhras or Bilbo, BoTB, although this is better explained by saying that because those actions do things other than play out-of-phase events, they aren't clearly intended to override the rules (which is why, in contrast, Diversion can be played out of phase).
I would argue that WitD falls into the same category as Sent Back and Diversion and overrides the general rule saying followers can't bear cards. You should note the errata, of course.
-
Follow the link to O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! and you'll see Decipher's notes on it. ;)
-
ok off topic but my reasoning behind the Bilbo, BotB and Pass Of Caradhras is that neither card says that it allows events to be played out of phase but diversion for example has a disclaimer, per se, that allows you to play it in a different phase.
And I also think that samwise has a good point when he says that the latter rule takes precedence over earlier rules.
-
if a card directly contradicts the rules of the game, the card wins.
so yes
This is not true. O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! cannot use its ability, despite contradicting the rules, so I think that Whisper in the Dark should be treated the same way.
-
This is not true. O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! cannot use its ability, despite contradicting the rules, so I think that Whisper in the Dark should be treated the same way.
O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! is a special case because the rule was made after the card.
Think of what would happen if cards didn't override the rules. Sent Back wouldn't work (the rules say you can't play unique characters when copies of them are in your dead pile). Cards that play themselves from your discard pile or have effects from your discard pile wouldn't work (the rules say a card's game text is only active when it is in play, not when it's in your discard pile). Cards that mess with play order like Anduin Wilderland, The Balrog, DB, or Caverns of Isengard wouldn't work (the rules say that you have an archery phase and that the Free Peoples player wins at the start of the regroup phase at site 9). Not even Lightfootedness would work (the rules say the minion archery total is equal to the number of minion archers; they do mention that cards can add to your archery total, but they never say they can subtract from it). The only way most of the mechanics in this game work is because the cards override the rules.
Also note that Decipher took the time to errata WitD, but never did they bother to rule it illegal. And why would they bother to errata a card you could never play in the first place?
-
It is worth noting that you can use O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! to take off the One Ring.
-wtk
Edit: Which...Kralik mentioned a few posts ago!
-wtk
-
So, where does it say that cards override the rules?
-
Again, a general principle of interpreting rules is that the specific (cards) overrides the general (rulebook) and that the later (cards) overrides the earlier (rulebook, except in the case of OEG where the rule came later).
Not to mention the fact that so many of the cards contradict the rules (Sent Back, The Balrog, DB, Gollum, PD, etc.), so holding that the rules override the cards would make a great many commonly-used cards worthless, and thus cannot possibly have been Decipher's intent.
-
O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! is a special case because the rule was made after the card.
The CRD entry as written doesn't seem to treat OEG as a special case. The entry simply gives the no-cancel rule as the reason, which presumably means no card (even one created in the future) can ever contradict this rule.
IMO it'd be similarly shaky if Sent Back was curbed by noting "As a unique companion cannot be played if a copy is in your dead pile, the fellowship or regroup action of this card cannot be used."
Maybe the bottom line is the same, though--not worry about fitting this example into any golden rules.
-
The CRD entry as written doesn't seem to treat OEG as a special case. The entry simply gives the no-cancel rule as the reason, which presumably means no card (even one created in the future) can ever contradict this rule.
Yes but the reason the no-cancel rule applies to OEG (and other rules don't override the cards) logically seems to be because the no-cancel rule came later. Again, Decipher didn't say this was their reason for treating OEG differently from, say, Sent Back, but it's a better explanation of their motivations than to say that the no-cancel rule is somehow different from all other rules, especially when the principle that later rules override earlier rules is such a fundamental assumption of rulemaking (if Congress passes one law saying the speed limit is 50mph, then later passes a law saying it's 60mph, we all know that the latter rule overrides the former; if it didn't, no rule could ever be changed).
-
i thought cards did what they say they did? why is this even being debated? true, followers can't bear stuff but the text of the condition specifically states bearer must be a follower
-
Because followers can't bear cards. Not all cards do what they say.
-
Cards that mess with play order like Anduin Wilderland, The Balrog, DB, or Caverns of Isengard wouldn't work (the rules say that you have an archery phase and that the Free Peoples player wins at the start of the regroup phase at site 9).
Where does it say that there must be an archery phase?
-
Where does it say that there must be an archery phase?
Where does it say there must be fellowship phase or a skirmish phase or a regroup phase?...
The archery phase is a part of the game just like the others.
Whether or not people agree, Whisper In The Dark can be used. Simple as that. Or at least everyone that I have ever played against on gccg has never had a problem with it and I have a whispers deck that I used to use all the time. It's nothing namarie can't handle, and useless against ring-bound decks.
I would also say that it has been errated, so why errata it if it can't be used..?
(I know about frenzy of arrows, they must have had plans to introduce orc archers in the last couple of sets that were never released is all I can come up with for that ridiculous errata)
-
Read the thread before you post.
Where does it say that there must be an archery phase?
Where does it say there must be fellowship phase or a skirmish phase or a regroup phase?...
That wasn't my point. I don't see anywhere that says that the archery phase cannot be skipped.
Whether or not people agree, Whisper In The Dark can be used. Simple as that.
Followers can't bear cards. It's in the rules. Simple as that.
-
Hmm, I am not sure about this. Both say things that make total sense. I am leaning towards Lurtzy, but that is only because I hate Whispers in the Dark, which is not a legal point of view, haha
-
i actually think the real problem is it's combo with Saruman, SoS cause i usually don't run followers (except pallando) so i normally don't worry about my own followers. but since it can be played on saruman, it makes it so much more versatile, i mean would you want to run it if you were dependent on your opponent playing followers? without saruman, it would be like running the cave troll's chain in a multiplayer game where you're basically counting on your fellow shadow players to play the cave troll, otherwise you have 3-4 useless cards
of course you could just discard saruman by running Librarian, Keeper of Ancient Texts, Erkenbrand's Horn, Horn of Boromir, The Great Horn or Gamling's Horn
-
That wasn't my point. I don't see anywhere that says that the archery phase cannot be skipped.
Saying there is an archery phase after the maneuver phase implies that at the end of the maneuver phase, you have an archery phase.
Besides, the rules clearly state that you can't play a unique companion when there's a copy of that companion in your dead pile (contrary to Sent Back), etc.
In order to argue that preexisting rules supersede the cards, you don't just need to explain how that allows Anduin Confluence to work, you need to explain how Sent Back, Gollum, PD, or the many other cards that contradict the rules and yet have never been challenged work, just as I was able to give an explanation for the only case where a rule was deemed to supersede a card that directly contradicted it (OEG) (if you can come up with a case where a preexisting rule was interpreted to render part or all of a card's text entirely ineffective, I'd be happy to hear it).
Moreover, the question still remains why Decipher would bother to errata Whisper in the Dark if the rules prohibited it from ever being played. Yes, they did that stupid errata with Frenzy of Arrows, but that could be explained by the notion that they planned to make [orc] archers or even forgot that there were no [orc] archers, a far more understandable mistake than failing to notice that the card's game text explicitly contradicted a rule. Also, it could be that the errata to Frenzy of Arrows was intended a backdoor ban, whereas the errata to Whisper in the Dark would, by your interpretation, have absolutely no gameplay effect (since the card could never be played anyway).
What this keeps going back to, however, is the question: When a preexisting rule would render part (or all) of a card's game text entirely ineffective, which wins? I would argue that the card wins, both because the card is later and more specific (so the general principles of interpretation favor the card), and because of the numerous examples where cards' game texts have been held or assumed to override preexisting rules (with no counterexamples of which I am aware).
-
Another stalemated argument in Standard. What a surprise.
-wtk
-
Read the thread before you post.
That wasn't my point. I don't see anywhere that says that the archery phase cannot be skipped.
Followers can't bear cards. It's in the rules. Simple as that.
I did read the thread.
Well if whispers doesn't work then neither does sent back. Explain that please Mr. Lurtzy.
Why can companions be played from the dead pile even though it contradicts the rules?
So if Sent Back is allowed then Whispers is too. Can't allow one and not the other just because you don't like whispers..
-
Another stalemated argument in Standard. What a surprise.
-wtk
Not stalemated because whispers can be played. ;)
-
http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php/topic,2092.0.html
-
http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php/topic,2092.0.html
Smallman's using it, that must make it legal. :roll:
-
That's right, he knows the rules well. :)
-
Obviously not, because it can't be played.
-
I'm not completely sure.
-
I wasn't sure at the time. I am now.
-
Funny, because after reading this thread I'm pretty much convinced in the opposite direction. It can be played, because as already stated, specific card text "overrules the rules" unless there is a specific ruling change at a later point. Again, OEG is not a valid example since the rulings regarding canceling ringbearer skirmishes came after the card was printed.
Ugh a PC would be nice to make it official.
-
Yes but the reason the no-cancel rule applies to OEG (and other rules don't override the cards) logically seems to be because the no-cancel rule came later. Again, Decipher didn't say this was their reason for treating OEG differently from, say, Sent Back, but it's a better explanation of their motivations than to say that the no-cancel rule is somehow different from all other rules, especially when the principle that later rules override earlier rules is such a fundamental assumption of rulemaking (if Congress passes one law saying the speed limit is 50mph, then later passes a law saying it's 60mph, we all know that the latter rule overrides the former; if it didn't, no rule could ever be changed).
But that's exactly what this entry is doing--it sets an example where a rule cannot be overridden by cards. The entry does not mention the card coming earlier as the reason it does not work (in which case it might be simpler just to issue an erratum). If the entry says "This text does not work because we have a rule that says so" then... that's it, without further qualifications. It's up to us to bend it whichever way.
-
Yes but the reason the no-cancel rule applies to OEG (and other rules don't override the cards) logically seems to be because the no-cancel rule came later. Again, Decipher didn't say this was their reason for treating OEG differently from, say, Sent Back, but it's a better explanation of their motivations than to say that the no-cancel rule is somehow different from all other rules, especially when the principle that later rules override earlier rules is such a fundamental assumption of rulemaking (if Congress passes one law saying the speed limit is 50mph, then later passes a law saying it's 60mph, we all know that the latter rule overrides the former; if it didn't, no rule could ever be changed).
But that's exactly what this entry is doing--it sets an example where a rule cannot be overridden by cards. The entry does not mention the card coming earlier as the reason it does not work (in which case it might be simpler just to issue an erratum). If the entry says "This text does not work because we have a rule that says so" then... that's it, without further qualifications. It's up to us to bend it whichever way.
Decipher has never been good at giving explanations. But if you did assume that rules overrode the cards, Sent Back, The Red Arrow, etc., wouldn't work. The only way you can reconcile OEG with Sent Back is by noticing that in OEG the rule came later.
-
Card game designing is pretty similar and straigthforward, so most of them follows simple design rules, which are:
-Rules apply to cases covered by then;
-A card's text takes precedence over a ruling.
Of course, this is assuming best-case scenarios, where rules never have to undergo changes. If they DO undergo changes, until they finish changing ALL of the cards' clarification texts to fit the new rules, you apply the rules to all the cards already printed by the time they were altered. So, it comes down to this, in reality:
-A card's text takes precedence over a ruling, as long as it was printed UNDER said ruling.
This is why O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! had to be errata'ed, and a BUNCH of others had either errata issued, or their functionality changed even though no errata was issued (let's face it, D WAS lazy with stuff like this). So, bottom line, from what I've gathered, Whisper in the Dark came out AFTER the rules for followers had been set, right? So it CAN be used with its PRINTED functionality.
-
I'll be honest, I'm not so keen on the idea of allowing a card to subvert the rules written in the CRD; however, all signs point to this card being legal. And I don't think Sent Back is a good example, because it clearly states that you can play a card even if that companion is in the dead pile. So in that case, it has given a clear acknowledgement of the rules as they stand and this card allows you to go around it.
My biggest thought on the card being legal is that it was errata'ed. That implies that even the lowest-level employee at Decipher looked at the card.
But here's my question. What abuse is possible if followers are allowed to bear cards? I don't know of any of the major cards allowing the bearer to be a "character" anyways and since Followers don't have printed races, a card like Elven Bow (bearer must be an Elf) can't be put on Sabine Crossen...
-wtk
-
But here's my question. What abuse is possible if followers are allowed to bear cards? I don't know of any of the major cards allowing the bearer to be a "character" anyways and since Followers don't have printed races, a card like Elven Bow (bearer must be an Elf) can't be put on Sabine Crossen...
Good point, but there are also cards that refer to people by name like Radagast's Staff (on Radagast, ToB) or Saruman's Staff (on Saruman, SoS). It's easier to make one rule than multiple clarifications, especially if Decipher wanted to make more big-name followers (e.g. Elrond or Galadriel).
-
:gp: Sam. I forgot about the Staffs.
Well...what if the rule was "Followers Cannot Bear Artifacts"? I will be honest, I don't really see to much problem with Radagast, Tender of Beasts and Radagast's Staff on a companion. It is nothing that Troll Swarm can't handle (that is me being sarcastic--I dislike Standard, as many people know).
-wtk
-
At any rate, the issue wasn't possessions/artifacts being played on followers, it was conditions, which have considerable flexibility already in this game. We have conditions that add vitality, conditions that add to (or take away from) the archery total, conditions that change how the ring-bearer gets corrupted, heck, conditions that act as minions (here (http://lotrtcgdb.com/pages/LOTR11216.html) and here (http://lotrtcgdb.com/pages/LOTR13079.html)). It seems to me much less radical for a condition to say "bearer must be a follower" than "make this condition a fierce strength 10 minion". I think the rule of "followers may not bear cards" is just fine, since that will block possessions and artifacts, but the ever-fickle condition will simply scoot by it when it needs to.
Where does the authority lie? I say the most recent, be it a rule or a card. If a card were to be printed today that said "exert five companion, add three threats, three burdens and discard three cards at random from hand to cancel the Ring-bearer's skirmish" I would roll with it...simply because, by design, knowing that canceling the ring-bearer's skirmish is illegal, it added such a heavy cost to match its effect. It would take into account that that would be very hard to do on site nine (assuming the shadow player has been awake all game). At any rate, I like less to look at O Elbereth as a ruling, and more an errata. Cards that change sites were errata'd to say that they only work in Fellowship block, or Tower block, or the block they belong to...how is this any different from a "ruling"?